Grenfell enquiry

The least that can be done for Grenfell residents is to listen to their stories of loss. Yes it is harrowing, but how can any enquiry establish exactly what happened if the voices of the survivors are not heard? As for the cost, these people have suffered because of cost cutting already, surely they are entitled to have a fully funded enquiry which allows them to speak out.

We understand that perfectly mary, and perhaps we prefer not to be 'that grown up' so no need to be patronising! You could easily have appalling people for both, the public can be very fickle as the referendum proved!

One of the many questions to be asked about the Grenfell disaster is, when did the fire service realise that the outside cladding was on fire and should not have been? At 10.30ish the TV showed the lower floors on oneside blazing. People were told to stay put then when clearly the cladding was alight.

As the fire progressed, another question must be, why was the operational instruction stay put given by the fire service at the onset of the fire, when clearly the outside cladding was blazing? Another is, at what point should the operational instruction have been changed to flee?

As has been said earlier by many posters, there are two main issues here the Building regs, materials and fitting etc and the more important in my mind for those who lost loved ones in the Grenfell fire: could lives have been saved had that operational instruction to flee been given at some stage in the development of the fire?

This article posted by another poster reports that the instruction now the fire service and authorities know the cladding is not fireproof and has not, in some cases been fitted correctly is, according to The Guardian to flee should a fire break out.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/19/grenfell-tower-fire-tests-cladding-unsafe-fire-brigade-advice-to-flee

I would rather we had the queen than a President , the very thought of another election every five years with wealthy people running for president, no thanks , all the dirty washing aired in public , headlines - he/she slept with x . Kiss and tell stories .

Well said Anniebach.

"

Amen to that annie!

"Elfyn Edwards, a fire safety expert and former firefighter, told the BBC the stay put policy was designed to stop residents in flats unaffected by fire from unnecessarily evacuating the building and blocking the stairways.
Usually the way tower blocks are designed means a fire breaking out in one flat should not spread throughout the rest of a building.
Should you stay put?
LFB said: "Our guidance to 'Stay Put', unless your flat is being affected by fire or smoke, is based on the fire protection provided in the building and the walls and doors of each flat.
"This has been the case for many decades and, although fires in flats unfortunately occur throughout the country every day, the fire usually only affects the flat on fire.
"However, some smoke may enter corridors when the residents leave the flat on fire, or firefighters enter the flat to extinguish the fire.
"By staying put it will reduce the risk of you entering a smoky corridor unnecessarily and potentially being overcome by smoke. It will also allow our firefighters to tackle the fire safely and quickly without being delayed by many residents evacuating down the stairways."
The Local Government Association, which represents councils, said the stay put policy was not intended to deter people from leaving the building if they felt threatened.
In the case of Grenfell Tower, the speed at which the fire engulfed the block was unprecedented, Mr Edwards said.
Michael Paramasivan, who lived on the seventh floor of Grenfell Tower with his girlfriend and young daughter, said he ignored official advice to stay in your home.
"If we had stayed in that flat, we would've perished. My gut instinct told me just to get the girls out. I wrapped the little one up because of the smoke and I just got them out."
London mayor Sadiq Khan told BBC Radio 4 there would now be questions asked of the wisdom of following the stay put advice."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40380163

Can you imagine this sort of advice being issued in a factory or an office block. The first thing on hearing a fire alarm is always leave your stuff and evacuate.

The better safe than sorry advice should always apply in my view.

I feel discussion of the wedding is irrelevant here but it win't stop me putting in my twopennorth! The wedding will have brought a huge amount of money into the country from tourism and television rights, to name but 2; and remember a cost of £32 million is actually only about 50p each. Perhaps a fund-raising website should be started while these moving testimonies are in front of us, and everyone could contribute 50p to that (or more).

It's also worth remembering that H & M requested that instead of wedding gifts, donations would be made to the charities they support.

I don't suppose we'll know how much in total was given but I should think it was a sizable sum and gratefully received.

Getting back to the enquiry. Yes, it is relevant that each and every party who had a bereavement, lost their home, suffered injury should give testimony if they so wish. Only by doing this can the judge and the general public too, see that this tragedy was not about statistics, it was about real people with lives, just like all of us.

In regard to the instruction given to residents to "stay put" in their homes was in all probability based on whatever knowledge ( or lack of knowledge) the fire service had in regards to the building.

All large buildings should be covered by what is known as a Dynamic Risk Assessment. These documents should be drawn up by the owners or management authorities of these buildings and cover access points, fire hydrants and riser access, materials that would give off toxic vapours under heat stress and at approximately what temperatures, along with any other information that would be useful to the fire service and others in an emergency.

These dynamic risk assessments should then lodged with the emergency services to be readily available when required. However, in recent years the anti "elf & Safety" Tabloid press culture and successive cutting of "red tape" governments has meant that the lodging of Dynamic Risk assessments with the appropriate authorities has (with the exception of industrial plants and large distribution centers) almost completely stopped.

The legislation is still in place, but the Health & Safety Executive or the local authorities do not have the manpower to inspect or chase up those not fulfilling those requirements.

It is probable to my mind that the fire service on the night of the disaster did not have a risk assessment to hand and therefore the Senior Fire Officer would have been in the position of having to draw up a Dynamic Assessment based on what he could observe on arrival and throughout the emergency.

Certainly not an easy thing to do with people's lives resting on your every decision.

If a president is head of state as opposed to head of government, the whole process is much lower key as they have no actual political power. It’s a totally different ball game. I only brought the cost of the security of the wedding into this because the OP said the money spent on hearing the testimonials should be spent instead on cladding or whatever. If someone says that then it’s perfectly acceptable to bring in another example of other spending that could go on the cladding. As for the money brought into the country - well that’ll get spread around won’t it? The Murdoch family for example really need their share of the TV rights money bless them. Don’t you just love trickle down theories of wealth creation?

H & M had two wedding gift lists, the public were asked to give money to charity which is understandable , imagine all those tea towels or similar

Why do people insist that the wedding “brought money into the country” Humptydumpty ? It brought nothing to the NE of England I can assure you. Not one penny......and I prefer to choose the charity I give money to.

I wonder wha the “other” list was . A 21 roomed apartment please grandmama ? An all expenses paid trip to some exotic island please daddy dearest? How about a new Bentley please, dear brother, (battery powered of course) ?

Oh FGS mary and gilly, we all know how you feel about the RF - lets just say we've got the message!! We're all entitled to our opinion so surely we can agree to differ and concentrate on the OP.

gilly, your comments are just childish and pathetic!

Dear me, we’re going off track again. This post is about Grenfell tower isn’t it? Whatever our thoughts about the RF and the wedding and it’s cost, etc, etc, Rosina was asking about our thoughts on the length of time being given to the families and victims to allow them to give individual testimonies at the start of the enquiry and the cost of doing so. Personally, I think it is the right thing to do, allowing them to speak.

The OP also included the cost issue and suggested that the testemonies shouldn’t be given because of the COST - this was imo heartless and especially after the bread and circuses we’d all just experienced. 72 people died and it’s more than likely it will be because of penny punching in one of the world’s richest economies. Many are still not in permanent accommodation - I’m ashamed of my country. And I’ll carry on stating my opinions of the RF niggly whether you like it or not. And anyone who agrees with the OP should hang their head in shame - read the last few sentences of what the judge said and tell me why he’s wrong about the testimonies being an integral part of the evjdence.

You carry on as much as you like mary, tbh, I'm just not interested or prepared to answer your vicious comments about a family you know little or nothing about. I'm proud of this Island North, South East and West, and that's my last comment on the subject of the RF.

Well thank goodness for that

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel as omeone once said. Uncritical pride in your country is truly dangerous

I’m sorry you have to resort to nasty comments just because we disagree niggly and yes “we are all entitled to our opinion” .

Rosina, the general public usually has and speaks a lot of common sense as you do in your OP.
The way relatively stable countries such as ours is governed often contains a lot of red tape & bureaucracies, which seems to take an inordinately length of time & money. On saying that it is usually very thorough & lesson are learnt.
They have to get this right, anymore cock ups would be an insult to the people of Grenfell.

Don't think I take the prize for nasty comments!!!!!!!